LCMS Commission on Constitutional Matters — Minutes St. Louis, Missouri — March 9, 1984, Page 3

Transcription machine transcription, uncorrected

⤓ Download .txt · copy text

the discussion of mutual problems and concerns." The Commission concurs with this interpretation. It is
not interpreted to provide either a recommendation or a mandate for the joint administration of campus
ministry at any level, synodical, District, or local with other Lutheran bodies.
The authority to make ecclesiastical decisions always remains the inherent right of a church body and
should not be delivered to a separate administrative organization. It is up to each District to provide
opportunity for consultation and coordination to happen, in keeping the synodical policy, and in an
appropriate manner which all members of the District may espouse. It is assumed that the CaliforniaNevada-Hawaii District agrees with this policy and is or will be implementing its campus ministry in a
manner consistent with it.
6. Nominations and Elections of Female Candidates as Presidents of Synodical Institutions and
Clarification on the Application of Bylaw 6.47 (Ag. 1690 A,B): The Board of Regents of Concordia
College, St. Paul, Minnesota, had requested a ruling with regard to the nomination and election of female
candidates as presidents of synodical institutions. In response, the Commission stated that the
Constitution and Bylaws of the Synod do not specifically forbid the nomination of female candidates as
presidents of synodical institutions. However, the Commission noted that the issue which apparently
underlies the request of the Board of Regents involves the responsibility of the president to supervise,
direct, and administer the affairs of the institution and all its departments (6.15, b) and to serve as the
spiritual head of the institution as stated in the introduction to Bylaw 6.15 and amplified in 6.15, h and i.
Relative to this, it should be observed that in adopting Resolution 2-17 at its Denver convention, 1969,
the Synod adopted as one of the guidelines with regard to woman suffrage and board membership a
statement concluding "that the Synod itself and the congregations of the Synod are at liberty to alter their
policies and practices in regard to women's involvement in the work of the church according to these
declarations, provided the polity developed conforms to the general Scriptural principles that women
neither bold the pastoral office nor 'exercise authority over men."' It further stated "that in the
implementation of any changes in this area of women's ministry in the church we urge cautious and
deliberate action in the spirit of Christian love." This position has been reaffirmed in succeeding
conventions.
While these statements do not specifically relate to presidents of synodical institutions, the Commission
took the following position:
The Synod has stated that a woman is not to exercise authority over man particularly in spiritual
matters. It is true that the president of an institution may delegate certain responsibilities to staff
members. One of these responsibilities which may be delegated is that of spiritual leadership of
the institution. However, for the reason that the power to delegate is just that and is not a release
of the responsibility, and ultimate responsibility for supervision is that of the person delegating
the responsibility, the Commission rules that on the basis of present bylaws and resolutions of the
Synod, a woman may not serve as president since the president is to serve as the spiritual,
academic, and administrative head of the institution according to Bylaw 6.15. The Board of
Regents may not delegate this ultimate responsibility either since the bylaws specifically assign it
to the president of the institution.
In a separate question, the Board of Regents of Concordia College, St. Paul, Minnesota, had asked for
clarification on the application of Bylaw 6.47. It had asked, "Does this apply only to the causes listed
under 5 and 6 of Section 6.43 or are 1 through 4 also inclusive?" In response, the Commission ruled that
the procedures outlined in 6.47 do indeed apply to all causes for removal found in Bylaw 6.43, c. The
procedures for exercising board supervision outlined in Bylaw 6.47 apply to those charges referred to in